Intensity-Modulated Proton Beam Therapy or Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage III-IVB Oropharyngeal Cancer

Intensity-Modulated Proton Beam Therapy or Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage III-IVB Oropharyngeal Cancer

Phase II/III Randomized Trial of Intensity-Modulated Proton Beam Therapy (IMPT) Versus Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy (IMRT) for the Treatment of Oropharyngeal Cancer of the Head and Neck

This randomized phase II/III trial studies the side effects and how well intensity-modulated proton beam therapy works and compares it to intensity-modulated photon therapy in treating patients with stage III-IVB oropharyngeal cancer. Radiation therapy uses high-energy x-rays, protons, and other types of radiation to kill tumor cells and shrink tumors. It is not yet known whether intensity-modulated proton beam therapy is more effective than intensity-modulated photon therapy in treating oropharyngeal cancer.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare the rates and severity of late grade 3-5 toxicity between intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) following the treatment of oropharyngeal tumors. (Phase II) II. To compare the rate of 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) between concurrent chemo-radiation strategies with IMRT and IMPT following the treatment of oropharyngeal tumors. (Phase III) SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. Disease-related outcomes (2-year progression-free survival, patterns of failure, 2-year overall survival, 2-year [yr] distant metastasis free survival, and second primary cancers). (Phase III) II. Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) measures of symptoms using MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck (FACT-HN), Xerostomia and Health Questionnaire (European Quality of Life 5-Dimension three level scale [EQ-5D-3L]), work status (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Specific Health Problem [WPAI: SHP]). (Phase III) III. Physician reported toxicity using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE)-4.0. (Phase III) IV. Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALY) comparison between IMPT and IMRT. (Phase III) V. Cost-benefit economic analysis of treatment. (Phase III) VI. To determine whether specific molecular profiles are associated with overall or progression-free survival. (Phase III) VII. To investigate associations between changes in serum biomarkers or human papillomavirus (HPV)-specific cellular immune responses measured at baseline and three months with overall or progression-free survival. (Phase III) VIII. To bank peripheral blood at time of enrollment, weeks 2, 4, and 6 during treatment and during follow up visits for 2 years to explore the ability of circulating markers to predict outcome. (Phase III) IX. To bank head and neck tissues to explore the ability of tissue-based markers to predict outcome. (Phase III) X. To bank peripheral blood and tissues for future interrogations. (Phase III) XI. Acute side effects of radiation therapy will be assessed. (Phase III) EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVE: I. To assess potential differences between patients on study and patients who were considered eligible for randomized, were randomized to a treatment arm, but were denied insurance coverage for the treatment arm she/he was randomized to; or may have dropped out of the study for other reasons after being randomized. These patients will compromise Group 3: consisting of patients randomized to Protons but not treated and Group 4: consisting of patients randomized to IMRT but not treated at the designated institution. Furthermore, these patients will only be followed for recurrence and survival.(Phase III) OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms. ARM I: Patients undergo IMRT once daily (QD) five days a week for approximately 6.5 weeks. ARM II: Patients undergo IMPT QD five days a week for approximately 6.5 weeks. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 3 months for 1 year, every 4 months for 1 year, and then every 6 months for 5 years.

Stage III Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma AJCC v7, Stage IVA Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma AJCC v7, Stage IVB Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma AJCC v7

IMRT, Intensity Modulated RT, Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, Radiation, Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy

IMRT, Intensity Modulated RT, Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, Radiation, Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy

PBRT, Proton, Proton EBRT, Proton External Beam Radiotherapy, Proton Radiation Therapy, Radiation, Proton Beam

Will be graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. The methods described by Gooley will be used to estimate the cumulative incidence of late onset grade 3+ toxicity by 2 years for each treatment arm with death as a competing risk. The methods of Fine and Gray will be used to model the cumulative incidence of late onset grade 3+ toxicity by 2 years as a function of treatment arm and other potential prognostic factors (e.g., human papillomavirus (HPV)/p16 status, use of induction chemotherapy) considering death as a competing risk. Hazard ratios for the prognostic factors from this model with 95% confidence intervals will be estimated.

Will be graded according to the NCI CTCAE version 4.0. The methods described by Gooley will be used to estimate the cumulative incidence of late onset grade 3+ toxicity by 2 years for each treatment arm with death as a competing risk. The methods of Fine and Gray will be used to model the cumulative incidence of late onset grade 3+ toxicity by 2 years as a function of treatment arm and other potential prognostic factors (e.g., HPV/p16 status, use of induction chemotherapy) considering death as a competing risk. Hazard ratios for the prognostic factors from this model with 95% confidence intervals will be estimated.

Stratified by treatment arm and estimated using the product limit estimator of Kaplan and Meier. Cox proportional hazards regression will be used to model OS as a function of potential prognostic factors. Hazard ratios for the prognostic factors from this model will be estimated with 95% confidence intervals.

Will be summarized at critical time points using the method of Kaplan-Meier. Kaplan-Meier plots will be used to visualize the time-to-event information by treatment arm, and the trial will be monitored based on results from log-rank tests used to compare treatment arms. Furthermore, Cox proportional hazards regression will be used to assess the time-to-event outcomes while adjusting for covariates of interest.

Will be summarized at critical time points using the method of Kaplan-Meier. Kaplan-Meier plots will be used to visualize the time-to-event information by treatment arm, and the trial will be monitored based on results from log-rank tests used to compare treatment arms. Furthermore, Cox proportional hazards regression will be used to assess the time-to-event outcomes while adjusting for covariates of interest.

QoL assessments will be summarized using the mean score and standard deviation for each time point of interest. Mean response trajectories will be plotted over the time horizon for each QoL instrument administered to patients in order to explore differences between treatment arms along with other patient characteristics of interest. Other analyses such as area under the curve and linear mixed models will be used to make statistical comparisons between treatment arms while adjusting for covariates of interest.

Inclusion Criteria: Histologically documented squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] version [v]7 stage III-IV A,B) Tumor tissue (primary or cervical metastasis) available for human papilloma virus (HPV) and/or p16 (in situ hybridization [ISH], immunohistochemistry [IHC] or genotyping testing); if you do not have enough leftover tumor tissue available, you will have a tumor biopsy for tumor marker testing Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status = 0, 1, or 2 Negative pregnancy test for women of child bearing potential Concurrent chemotherapy Bilateral neck radiation Exclusion Criteria: Previous radiation treatment for head and neck mucosal primary cancers within the past 5 years (i.e. oropharynx, nasopharynx, hypopharynx, larynx, and oral cavity) Pregnant or breast-feeding females Clinically significant uncontrolled major cardiac, respiratory, renal, hepatic, gastrointestinal or hematologic disease but not limited to: Symptomatic congestive heart failure, unstable angina, or cardiac dysrhythmia not controlled by pacer device Myocardial infarction within 3 months of registration Distant metastases (stage IV C, any T, any N and M1) Previous surgical resection or neck dissection for oropharyngeal cancer, administered with therapeutic intent

Gunn GB, Blanchard P, Garden AS, Zhu XR, Fuller CD, Mohamed AS, Morrison WH, Phan J, Beadle BM, Skinner HD, Sturgis EM, Kies MS, Hutcheson KA, Rosenthal DI, Mohan R, Gillin MT, Frank SJ. Clinical Outcomes and Patterns of Disease Recurrence After Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Oropharyngeal Squamous Carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):360-367. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.021. Epub 2016 Feb 12.